On Monday 30 Jul 2007 3:10 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:02:49PM +0530, shiv sastry wrote: > > This is where the controversy about patenting old and well known stuff > > comes in. > > there is no controversy - old and well known stuff can't be patented. it > gets patented only because overworked patent offices don't find the > references to prior stuff and don't know better than to believe applicant > claims that it is their new invention. patents thus granted are invalidated > when old stuff is drawn to the attention of the patent office. > > but this happens all the time especially with the US PTO which is > underfinanced and overworked; it is hardly limited to patents on turmeric.
This is vaguely reminiscent of "Guilty until proven innocent" I patent something that already exists and get away with it, and start earning money on my patent from people who don't know it exists. Eventually someone comes along who disputes the patent. He then has to appeal to the same overworked patent office that issued the patent to overturn it - and the burden of proof is on him. So the combination of a quick thinking patenter and an overworked office can lead to a system that is absurd. shiv
